Reflections on Trump’s Influence and Media Coverage
For over six months now, President Donald Trump has been at the center of a significant political landscape. Even CNN described him as “the most influential president” of this century. However, it’s interesting to note that the media’s portrayal hasn’t shifted much since the early days of his presidency. Instead, some outlets have seemingly declared him a “future” figure while trying to frame the narrative around the idea that “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” This approach seemed to crystallize back in 2017 when the media decided to move away from past paradigms.
The media landscape has changed, somewhat—though not in the ways you might expect. Many familiar voices from the Washington Post have left their opinion sections, replaced by fact-checkers like Glenn Kessler. Meanwhile, personalities such as Howard Stern and Stephen Colbert have faded from prominence. Unfortunately, much of this commentary has been redirected to other platforms, which churn out various interpretations labeled as “news.”
Take recent examples: CBS interviewed South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott, who was set to discuss his book on “Christian Courage,” rather than the surrounding media frenzy.
CNN’s View on Trump’s Legacy
In a twist, comedian Larry David produced a controversial piece following a dinner with Trump, humorously titled “My Dinner with Adolf.” It concluded with him joking about giving a Nazi salute. Meanwhile, The Daily Beast published a provocative article equating Trump to Hitler, alleging that his administration displayed “the cruelty of its cabinet.” Additionally, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow claimed that the U.S. resembles an “integrated dictatorship.” It’s perplexing how this view persists even as they continue to cover the same topics.
When it comes to pressing societal issues like illegal immigration or Israel, the narratives often seem to echo a left-leaning agenda, making them read more like public relations than investigative journalism. The media’s current fixation on the Epstein Files suggests a clumsy attempt to sidestep past negligence during Biden’s presidency, despite the ongoing drip of information surrounding Trump. Yet, The Times acknowledges the reasons for its relentless focus, suggesting that it’s acceptable because it involves Trump—a curious double standard, reminiscent of the “Russia, Russia, Russia” saga.
The initial claims regarding Russian involvement proved to be baseless, but despite this, such narratives have stuck around. National Intelligence efforts are underway to delve into a massive trove of new documents, indicating ongoing legal battles ahead.
Interestingly, publications like Rolling Stone have posited that the new “Maga Russian evidence” is likely fabricated by foreign entities, while prominent media outlets choose to sidestep discussing the core truths. Initially, significant airtime was devoted to promoting these unverified claims, only to be met with current circumstances that evoke embarrassment over previous reporting.
And it doesn’t seem to end there. When President George W. Bush initially presented the idea of a lunar base as part of his vision in 2004, it barely stirred a reaction. However, when Trump revisited this notion, CBS produced a skeptical response about colonialism’s historical context on Earth. Neil deGrasse Tyson even had to remind the public that the moon remains untouched by colonization.
The Media Narrative Continues
Looking at current editorial pieces, it seems like we’re stuck in 2017 again. Headlines suggest Trump is economically illiterate and compare him to a figure of racial vilification. It’s rather disheartening to note that media scrutiny often feels more like an attack on facts—something Americans are already grappling with.
In reality, shows like The View recently sparked conversations when it was revealed that they hadn’t hosted conservative guests early this year—numbers reflected an imbalance that felt more like an overwhelming advantage. As Charlamagne tha God aptly pointed out, it’s unreasonable to only engage with those you agree with.
Yet, there’s an undeniable sense that many journalists remain trapped in their perspectives from 2017. They seem unable to adapt, almost like they’ve crashed their time machine and are stuck in the past while a majority of the country has moved on to 2025.
